Mangal Singh v. Union of India

3. Learned counsel for the appellant urged at the time of hearing that the bag of the injured containing the other articles was lost during the accident.

4. The legal position with respect to the untoward incident inside the railway station is well settled. Section 124-A of the Railways Act is based on the principle of no fault liability and the compensation cannot be denied to the appellant on the ground that the deceased was negligent and it is wholly irrelevant as to who was at fault. Section 123(c) of the Railways Act defines 'untoward incident' to include the accidental falling of any passenger from a train carrying passengers: 'The word 'passenger' has been defined under Section 2 (29) of the Railways Act as a person travelling with a valid pass or ticket. The Explanation to Section 124A clarifies that the word 'passenger' includes a railway servant on duty; and a person who has purchased a valid ticket for travelling by a train or a valid platform ticket and becomes a victim of an untoward incident. As such, there are three categories of persons who are defined as passengers: - (i) a person with a valid ticket to travel; (ii) a person who holds a railway pass to travel and (iii) a person who holds a platform ticket. In each of the categories, so long as a person is in railway premises or a train, he is taken as a passenger. His or her presence in the railway premises or a train is taken as authorized; It is for Page 2oflO this reason that there are decisions which extend meaning of the term "passenger" to a person who comes to a platform and gets into a wrong train [Gaurav Kapoor v Union of India, III (2014) ACC 639 (Del)] or a person who purchases a passenger train ticket and gets into an express train [Santoshi v Union of India, 2014 SCC Online Del 6510 (Del)]; person travelling atop a train and not inside a passenger compartment [Raj Pal Goel v. Union of India, 2014 ACJ 2315] or a person breaking journey without an endorsement and getting into another train in continuation of the journey to the destination station [Dwarika Mahto v. Union of India, 2013 ACJ 768]. In all these situations, it is possible to feed meaning and logic to the decisions only if we recognize, that primacy always is the lawful authority to enter the railway premises;when the incident of travel itself becomes secondary.

5. In Union of India v. Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar, (2008) 9 SCC 527, a lady fell down while trying to enter the train and was run over by the train Railways contended that the deceased was negligent and there was no fault of Railways. The Supreme COurt'h1d"thatSèction 124-A lays down strict liability or no fault liability in case of railway accidents. Hence, if a case comes within the purview of Section 124-A.i:i.:.holly irrelevant as to who was at fault. The relevant portion of the judgment is reproduced hereunder:- "10. We are of the opinion that it will not legally make any difference whether the deceased was actually inside the train when she fell down or whether she was only trying to get into the train when she fell down. In our opinion in either case it amounts to an "accidental falling of a passenger from a train carrying passengers ". Hence, it is an "untoward incident" as defined in Seetinn 17 i') ni tiw Rnilwuiu' Act. FAO 332/2010 Page3oflo

11. No doubt, it is possible that two interpretations can be given to the expression "accidental falling of a passenger from a train carrying passengers ", the first being that it only applies when a person has actually got inside the train and thereafter falls down from the train, while the second being that it includes a situation where a person is trying to board the train and falls down while trying to do so. Since the provision for compensation in the Railways Act is a beneficial piece of legislation, in our opinion, it should receive a liberal and wider interpretation and not a narrow and technical one. Hence, in our opinion the latter of the abovementioned two interpretations i.e. the one which advances the object of the statute and serves its purpose should be preferred.........

12. It is well settled that if the words used in a beneficial or welfare statute are capable of two constructions, the one which is more in consonance with the object of the Act and for the benefit of the person for whom the Act was made should be preferred. In other words, beneficial or we'fare statutes should be given a liberal and not literal or strict interpretation........................... xxx xxx xxx

14. In our opinion, if we adopt a restrictive meaning to the expression "accidental falling of a passenger from a train carrying passengers" in Section 123(c) of the Railways Act, we will be depriving a large number of railway passengers from getting compensation in railway accidents. It is well known that in our country there are crores ofpeople who travel by railway trains since everybody cannot afford travelling by air or in a private car. By giving a restrictive and narrow meaning to the expression we will be depriving a large number of victims of train accidents (particularly poor and middle class people) from getting compensation under the Railways Act. Hence, in our opinion, the expression "accidental falling of a passenger from a train carrying passengers" includes accidents when a bona fide passenger i.e. a passenger travelling with FAO 332/2010 Page4of 10 a valid ticket or pass is trying to enter into a railway train and falls down during the process. In other words, a purposive, and not literal interpretation should be given to the expression.

17. Section 124-A lays down strict liability or no fault liability in case of railway accidents. Hence, if a case comes within the purview of Section 124-A it is wholly irrelevant as to who was at fault.

52. In view of the above, we are of the opinion that the submission of learned counsel for the appellant that there was no fault on the vart of the Railways, or that there was contributory negligence, is based on a total misconception and hence has to be rejected." (Emphasis Supplied)

6. In Jameela v. Union of India, (2010) 12 SCC 443, a passenger travelling by Awadh Express with a valid ticket fell down near Magarwara Railway Station which resulted in his death Railways contended that the deceased was negligent in standing at the dodr near Magarwara Railway Station where the train does not stop. The Railway Claims Tribunal allowed the claim which was set aside by the High Court in appeal on the ground that the deceased was negligent. The SuprèmeCdurt held that the negligence of the deceased will not have any effect on the liability to pay compensation under Section 124A. The relevant portion of the judgment is as under: "7. We are of the considered view that the High Court gravely erred in holding that the applicants were not entitled to any compensation under Section 124-A of the Act, because the deceased had died by falling down from the train because of his own negligence. First, the case of the Railways that the deceased M Hafeez was standing at the open door of the train compartment in a negligent manner from where he fell down is entirely based on speculation. There is admittedly no eyewitness to the fall of the deceased from the train and, therefore, there is absolutely no evidence to support the case of the Railways that the accident took place in the manner suggested by it. Secondly, even if it were to be assumed that the deceased fell from the train to his death due to his own negligence it will not have any effect on the compensation payable under Section 124-A of the Act.

10. It is not denied by the Railways that M Hafeez fell down from the train and died while travelling on it on a valid ticket. He was, therefore, clearly a "passenger" for the purpose of Section 124-A as clarfled by the Explanation. It is now to be seen, that under Section 124- A the liability to pay compensation is regardless of any wrongful act, neglect or default on the part of the Railway Administration. But the proviso to the section says that the Railway Administration would have no liability to pay any compensation in case death of the passenger or injury to him was caused due to any of the reasons enumerated in clauses (a) to (e).

Railways that the death of M Hqfeez was a case of suicide or a result of O self-inflicted injury. It is also not the case that he died due to his own criminal act or he was in a state of intoxication or he was insane, or he died due to any natural cause or disease. His falling down from the train was, thus, clearly accidental.

12. The manner in which the accident is sought to be reconstructed by the Railways, that the deceased was standing at the open door of the train compartment from where he fell down, is called by the Railways itself as negligence. Now negligence of this kind which is not very uncommon on Indian trains is not the same thing as a criminal act mentioned in clause (c) to the proviso to Section 124-A. A criminal act FAO 332/2010 Page 60110 M envisaged under clause (c) must have an element of malicious intent or mens rea. Standing at the open doors of the coin partment of a running train may be a negligent act, even a rash act but, without anything else, it is certainly not a criminal act. Thus, the case of the Railways must fail even after assuming everything in its favour.

8. In Union of India Owning Southern Railway v. The Add!. Registrar, Railways Claims Tribunal, (2012) 5 adLIT62, the passenger travelled in Chennai-Mangalore Express from Chennth to Karur. The train had an unscheduled halt at Veeravakiyam' Railway Station. After some time, the. train started moving. The deceased fell down from the moving train and died on the spot. The Madras High Côirt,fcTliñg Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar (supra) and Janzeela (supra), held that the dependants of the deceased were entitled for compensation. Relevant portion is reproduced hereunder: -